Solution to Juvenile Delinquency Caused By Family Context - Report Example

Solution to Juvenile Delinquency Caused By Family Context INTRODUCTION Juvenile delinquency has resulted in causing massive harm in the social relations and lifestyle choices of people in the community. Maturity gap within these juveniles has extended largely in the current phenomenon due to which, children have become more dependent on the family members. It will be worth noting that both developed nations and developing nations are facing the problems of juvenile delinquency, which has increased the pressure of childhood independence in the current societal context. Thus, it is considered that certain solution must be provided for juvenile delinquency that would reduce the extent of pressure being faced by children in their surrounding environment. Reports in this context depict that the problem of juvenile delinquency often occurs due to certain family problems. For instance, children are observed to be negatively affected when their parents engage in heavy drinking, or lack adequate supply of basic requirements owing to poverty. Evidences have also been obtained exhibiting children getting abused at home leading to juvenile delinquency. Parent’s demise may also be counted as a major cause for juvenile delinquency in the family context (United Nation, “Juvenile delinquency”). In relation to the problem of juvenile delinquency, Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP) and Aggression Replacement Training (ART) can be suggested as the best solution for the particular problem, particularly because ADP and ART are effective in reducing the extent of threat in relation to societal safety. Both ADP and ART are considered as the perfect response to the increased extent of crime rates in local communities. It is worth mentioning in this context that these programs use a modern approach to reduce the level of juvenile crime in an effective manner that has resulted to significant reduction in crime level (Davidson, “Adolescent diversion project”). ADP was started in the year 1976 by the Michigan State University (MSU) with the help of a collaborative contract amid National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH’s) Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency, Ingham County Juvenile Court and the MSU Department of Psychology. The MSU has also played a huge role in building an alternative for juvenile offenders, addressing the problems of juvenile delinquency (Davidson, “Adolescent diversion project”; Michigan State University Board of Trustees, “Ingham County Adolescent Diversion Project”). Thesis Statement. The thesis intends to provide a solution for juvenile delinquency that is caused by family problems or is directly related to the family context, highlighting two underlying causes of the issue and its corresponding solutions. OVERVIEW OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND ITS CAUSES Juvenile delinquency is an act in which, a person under the age of 18 years is convicted due to criminal offence and/or in active participation with illegal behavior. Juvenile crime activities have grown from the past few years, which have in turn caused severe problems in various regions of US along with other nations (Wickliffe, “Why juveniles commit crimes”). The crimes committed by juveniles mainly include vandalism, theft, drug usage and assaults such as fighting or hitting that does not cause any severe injury to the assaulted person. Juvenile delinquency can also be referred to as an activity, in which, a child violates either local law, federal law or law in another nation, often escaping correctional facilities or any kind of confinements (SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd, “Defining and measuring juvenile delinquency”). Cause 1. Youths also involve in delinquent behavior such as violations of curfew, school bunking, alcohol or drug related violation, which is usually known as status offenses, caused by certain family problems. This has been identified as a major cause for delinquent behavior among juveniles (SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd, “Defining and measuring juvenile delinquency”). Cause 2. Majority of the parents who are observed to remain ignorant to their responsibility towards the child may also become a cause in inducing delinquent behavior among children. It can thus be revealed that lacuna in parental authority along with inappropriate indulgence of parents towards their child has also emerged as a significant cause for juvenile delinquency (Smyth, “Parental responsibility and juvenile delinquency”). Observably, the two main causes of juvenile delinquency are the family structure and the connections of the adolescents with groups involved in criminal offences. Difference in family structures play a huge role in fuelling juvenile delinquency, being significantly influenced by the way they are monitored and supervised under their parents (Parks, “The effects of family structure on juvenile delinquency”). SOLUTION TO COUNTERACT THE CAUSE As identified above, juvenile delinquency is directly associated with family problems and other societal conditions, which may impose a strong negative effect on a child. The causes identified for juvenile delinquency include situations in which parents involve in drinking, poverty associated reasons and the situations in which children get severely abused by their parents. Thus, it can be considered that the family structure in which a child is exposed and the relationship between the children and their parent contribute largely towards juvenile delinquency (Ngale, “Family structure and juvenile delinquency: Correctional centre Betamba, centre province of Cameroon”). Hence in order to counteract these causes, the National Institute of Justice has developed numerous models that are intended to help in negating and undermining the pointed and several other causes of juvenile delinquency. Out of these models, 8 models have been selected that is considered as quite effective for counteracting the identified causes. These models include Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University), Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®), Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Community-Based Mentoring (CBM) Program, Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS), Career Academy, Families And Schools Together (FAST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT) (National Institute of Justice, “Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University)”). As mentioned above, family associated problems, often observed in terms of family structure, causes juvenile delinquency, which includes excessive drinking among parents and poverty situations at home, in which, children are exposed to abuse (Farrington, “Family influences on delinquency”). Therefore, it is considered that ADP is the best approach, as it diverts a child from delinquent activities through an arrangement of theoretical perspectives that is intended towards preventing such issues, discouraging the children to participate in such actions in the coming future. It is thus conceived that ADP increases the attachment of children towards their family and other individuals who are engaged in social activities. This in turn helps encouraging the children to get socially involved in the community, with adequate understanding of their responsibility towards the society (National Institute of Justice, “Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University)”). It is worth mentioning in this context that ADP comprises of three theoretical perspectives, which contribute towards mitigating the problems of juvenile delinquency. These perspectives include social control and bonding theory, social learning and social-interactionist theory. Accordingly, social control and bonding theory emphasizes the creation of a social bond within the children that results in preventing delinquent behavior among them and helps them in effectively interacting with the resources in the society. Likewise, social learning theory is based upon the assumption that children learn delinquent activities also when interacting with their friends, family members and other people in the community. Thus, this theory considers that children must interact with people who are socially integrated and are responsible towards the wellbeing of the community and their people, avoiding any inclusion of the individuals prone to such activities. To sum up, social-interactionist theory is based upon the assumption that labeling of behavior within the children, if considered as delinquent, encourages the children positively, to further interact with the society either deliberately or inadvertently that labels the children as delinquent. In relation to the effectiveness of the program, it can be revealed that children participating in the program had a significant change in their behaviour after successful completion of ADP, which in turn has been quite beneficial in reducing the number of juvenile crimes in various communities and states (National Institute of Justice, “Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University)”). Overall, it is considered that ADP is a useful program to negate or undermine the problem of juvenile delinquency. COST AND BENEFITS OF ADP The cost of initiating ADP will amount to USD 1,020.83 per children and will be an 18-weeks intervention program, wherein the overhead cost and administrative cost will be considered as all-inclusive. It is believed that ADP is quite reasonable as compared to the cost incurred by juvenile courts in correcting the delinquent behavior of young children. Accordingly, it can be viewed that the local juvenile courts spends more than USD 13,486 for correcting a single children applying various mechanisms, which is comparatively quite expensive than ADP. Moreover, an annual ADP program can provide its services to more than 144 youths, which is substantially better as compared to the juvenile courts that spend thousands of dollars for correcting an average of 375 youth every year. Evidently, these numbers clearly portray that there is a huge difference among ADP programs and correctional measures of juvenile courts in relation to the cost that is incurred to provide correctional services to the children. In addition, the success rate of ADP is also high along with the opportunity for the counties to save around USD 1,799,104 annually (National Institute of Justice, “Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University)”). In the recent phenomenon, it has been witnessed that more than 1 million youth in the US culminate in juvenile courts, following which they are usually referred to correctional institutes or detention centers. However, these measures are often criticized to deliver minimum support than expected to the youth, resulting in depression, suicidal tendency and recidivism amongst them in varying cases. Thus, in order to tackle this problem, several states in the US have implemented diversion programs such as ADP, which has resulted in positively influencing the behavior of youth, as evident with the reducing extent of crimes in the community. ADP that has been running successfully from 35 years has resulted in reducing the level of recidivism to 50%, which has been quite beneficial for the US (Aos, Polly, Robert and Roxanne, “The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime”). As ADP works as an educational tool for youth, it is believed that the program will positively revive the behavior of juveniles involved in crime or prone to become so, in the long run and help the US government to save its annual budget for correcting youth offenders. Therefore, the benefits of ADP can be argued to outweigh other deviation programs, as it has been successful in providing positive results (DeAngelis, “Better options for troubled teens”). COST AND BENEFITS OF AGGRESSION REPLACEMENT TRAINING (ART) The cost for applying ART is estimated to be around USD 745 per juvenile in the current phenomenon. After analyzing the cost benefit of ART, it can be revealed that if ART program is commenced by courts competently, it may save a sum of USD 11.66 in comparison to the costs incurred by courts on an average, when implementing various correctional activities. However, if ART is not commenced competently by courts, the societal cost incurred might even surpass the initial taxpayer expenditure by a cost margin of 3.1. On the whole, if the ART program is effectively delivered to youth, it can possibly result in saving the annual budget of states by approximately USD 6.71, for every USD 1 of costs. It is thus believed that compared with ADP, ART can also be quite beneficial, as it focuses on reducing aggressive behavior and violence amid youth that eventually results in the overall reduction of juvenile delinquency (National Institute of Justice, “Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®)”). FAILED SOLUTIONS Although it has been identified that the cost of commencing ADP program is comparatively more as compared to ART, it can be argued that ADP is quite beneficial for enhancing the behavior of youth on the long run in comparison. Nevertheless, it can be asserted that there are certain pros of ART wherein it focuses on reducing violence and anger amid youths that are expected to create an opportunity for reducing the extent of juvenile delinquency within the community. ART depends on repetitive learning along with techniques of transfer training that helps the youth to control their impulsiveness so as to develop a pro-social behavior among them. Correspondingly, it has been identified that there are three components in ART that can be used to improve Michigan State University Adolescent Project (MSUAP), which includes Anger Control Training, Structured Learning Training and Moral Reasoning, making it a more systematic program as compared to ART. This is because each of these components primarily focuses on the technique of developing a pro-social behavior amid the juveniles throughout the process of program implementation (National Institute of Justice, “Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®)”). Nonetheless, to be argued, ADP, in some cases, has failed, as the program is criticized to be quite lengthy, involving an 18 week intervention plan. Thus, some youth might not have the willingness of participating in such a lengthy program, as it would consume more time. While ART avoids these pitfalls, as it focuses on reducing the extent of juvenile delinquency within 10 weeks through pro-social behavior techniques, which further plays a crucial role to ensure that the problem of juvenile delinquency is negated efficiently. Moreover, ADP has also been criticized to fail in bringing changes in the self-reported delinquency amid young members in the society, which can be done successfully by ART (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Aggression Replacement Training (Probation)”). FEASIBILITY OF ADP Irrespective of the above argued grounds of failure, ADP has proved to be quite effective in counteracting the issue of juvenile delinquency, as it has been implemented by numerous states in the US successfully, positively influencing the delinquent behavior of students for the past few years. ADP is considered to be a unique program that makes practical and rational use of the educational pyramid along with creative paradigm that further helps in altering the delinquent behavior of youths. ADP services are mostly provided by undergraduates or other volunteers in the society under the supervision of qualified psychologists, due to which, it is expected to result in serving the actual purpose of the program more efficiently. Moreover, the services provided by ADP have actually helped in achieving the overall purpose of reducing the extent of juvenile delinquency in the US. The success rate of ADP is better as compared to other programs, which again advocates on behalf of its efficiencies. This is fundamentally because it has reduced the overall delinquency activities in the US, has also been efficient in reducing the sum of court petitions for juvenile delinquency in an annual year and improved the overall attendance of students in their respective schools and colleges. Moreover, ADP is considered to be feasible in comparison to other programs such as the ART, as it has resulted in saving the annual budget being incurred by various states for correcting youth in the US along with reducing the pressure for juvenile courts for counteracting the issue (Ku and Carol, “An exemplary project”). OPPOSITION As mentioned above, ADP has been successful in reducing juvenile delinquency by a substantial extent. However, it also creates complexities between the family members and the juvenile accused for delinquent activities, indicating certain loop holes in the program, which needs to be amended prior to its implementation. Additionally, ADP has also been ineffective to bring any kind of changes among the people who were accused for property related crimes apart from being able to change the socioeconomic status of the offenders. Overall, it can be considered that ADP will be successful in the long run but there are certain changes to be made in the program that would increase its success rate (National Institute of Justice, “Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University)”). CONCLUSION From the above study it can be asserted that all the 8 models are useful in controlling juvenile delinquency in various states and nations. However, it is considered that both ADP and ART can become an ideal solution in creating a better environment for juveniles in the society. This is fundamentally because both the models have a good success rate and has been used successfully by various states from the past few years. It is worth mentioning in this context that ADP might prove to be a better solution for juvenile delinquency as compared to ART in terms of its success rate, but in order to successfully reduce the extent of delinquent behavior among youths, both ADP and ART programs must be combined when being implemented. Works Cited Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski and Roxanne Lieb. “The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime.” Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2001): 1-75. Ku, Richard and Carol, Holliday, Blew. “An exemplary project.” University Of Illinois (1977): 1-105. Davidson, William S. “Adolescent diversion project.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement (n.d.): 1-20. DeAngelis, Tori. “Better options for troubled teens.” n.d. Web. 21 May. 2014. Farrington, David P. “Family influences on delinqueny.” Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC (n.d.): 203-222. “Ingham County Adolescent Diversion Project.” Michigan State University Board of Trustees. 2014. Web. 21 May. 2014. Ngale, Ilongo, Fritz. “Family structure and juvenile delinquency: Correctional centre Betamba, centre province of Cameroon.” Internet Journal of Criminology (2009): 1-19. “Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®).” National Institute of Justice. n.d. Web. 21 May. 2014. “Adolescent Diversion Project (Michigan State University).” National Institute of Justice. n.d. Web. 21 May. 2014. Parks, Alisha B. “The effects of family structure on juvenile delinquency.” Electronic Theses and Dissertations.Paper 2279 (2013): 2-42. “Defining and Measuring Juvenile Delinquency.” SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. n.d. Web. 21 May. 2014. Smyth, Philip. “Parental responsibility and juvenile delinquency.” Socio-Legal Studies Review (2012): 1, 65-92. “Juvenile Delinquency.” United Nation. 2003. Web. 21 May. 2014. “Aggression Replacement Training (Probation).” Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 2012. Web. 21 May. 2014. Wickliffe, Joseph A. “Why juveniles commit crimes.” 2014. Web. 21 May. 2014. Read More